Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The preliminary hearing determined employment status only. The claimants were found not to be employees, which is a prerequisite for a redundancy payment claim. However, the tribunal did not formally dismiss the substantive redundancy claim at this stage; status was the jurisdictional gateway.
The claimants sought a declaration as to employment status and statutory rights arising from failure to provide written particulars of employment. They were found to be workers during shifts but not employees. The substantive failure to provide written statement claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Claimants claimed accrued but untaken annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and as unauthorised deduction from wages. They were found to be workers during shifts, which provides the jurisdictional basis for holiday pay claims, but the substantive holiday pay claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Claimants claimed unauthorised deductions from wages under ERA 1996 s.13. They were found to be workers during shifts, which provides the jurisdictional basis, but the substantive unlawful deduction claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
21 claimants worked as Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs) providing custodial healthcare services to the Metropolitan Police under written contracts signed in 2009 and/or 2014 which stated they were self-employed contractors. The contracts were terminated on 30 April 2021. FMEs offered availability for shifts, were assigned shifts by the respondent, and were paid fees per shift. They were responsible for their own tax, had professional indemnity insurance, could work for others, and some invoiced through corporate vehicles. The tribunal heard detailed evidence on mutuality of obligation, control, integration, and the reality of the working relationship over 9 days from 6 lead claimants.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimants were not employees at any time under ERA 1996 s.230(1), either under an overarching contract or on an individual shift basis, due to lack of mutuality of obligation outside shifts and insufficient control. However, the tribunal found that during each individual shift worked, the claimants were 'limb (b)' workers under ERA 1996 s.230(3)(b) because they personally performed services under a contract and the respondent was not a client or customer of a business carried on by the claimants, given their significant integration into the respondent's operations.
Practical note
A preliminary hearing on employment status can result in a hybrid finding: no employee status at all, but worker status arising on an assignment-by-assignment basis during shifts only, not during gaps between shifts, with significant implications for limitation periods and scope of statutory claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2206499/2021
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Forensic Medical Examiner
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister